[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock
    [Adding H.J. to the Cc: list]

    On 07/14/2010 10:57 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    >> I/O ports, for example.
    > Yes, it looks like they should have memory barriers if we want them to
    > be ordered with respect to normal writes; afaict "asm volatile" has
    > never had strict ordering wrt memory ops.

    Noone has talked about strict ordering between volatiles and
    (non-volatile) memory ops in general. I have been talking about
    volatile to volatile ordering, and I thought I'd been very clear about that.

    H.J., we're having a debate about the actual semantics of "volatile",
    especially "asm volatile" in gcc. In particular, I believe that
    volatile operations should not be possible to reorder with regards to
    each other, and the kernel depends on that fact.


    P.S: gcc 4.4 seems to handle "const volatile" incorrectly, probably by
    applying CSE to those values.

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-14 20:11    [W:0.018 / U:18.800 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site